Republic v. Marcos [G.R. No. L-31065.

February 15, 1990] (2)The petition for change of name must be filed by the person
PONENTE: Grino-Aquino, J. desiring to change his/her name , even if it may be signed and
verified by some other person in his behalf. If minor, as in this
FACTS: case, when she reached the age of majority, she may file the
Pang Cha Quen, a Chinese National, was previous married to petition to change her name. The decision to change her
Sia Bian alias Huang Tzeh Lik, a citizen of Nationalist China, name, the reason for the change, and the choice of a new
and she gave birth to a daughter named May Sia alias name and surname shall be hers alone to make. It must be her
Manman Huang born on January 28, 1958. personal decision. No one else may make it for her. The
reason is obvious. When she grows up to adulthood, she may
On January 12, 1959, Pang Cha Quen caused her daughter to
not want to use her stepfather's surname, nor any of the
be registered as an alien under the name of Mary Pang, i.e.,
aliases chosen for her by her mother. In Moore vs. Republic, 8
using the maternal surname, because the father had
SCRA 282, 284, we held:
abandoned them.
Another factor to be reckoned with is the fact that the child
Mary Pang had always used this name at home and in the
concerned is still a minor who for the present cannot
Baguio Chinese Patriotic School where shestudied.
fathom what would be his feeling when he comes to a
On August 16, 1966, Pang Cha Quen married Alfredo De la mature age. Any way, if the time comes, he may decide the
Cruz, a Filipino citizen. matter for himself and take such action as our law may
Mary Pang has grown to love and recognize her stepfather, permit. For the present we deem the action taken by
Alfredo, as her own father, and she desires to adopt and use petitioner premature.
his surname "De la Cruz" in addition to her name "Mary Pang" As pointed out by the Solicitor General, the State has an
so that her full name shall be Mary Pang De la Cruz. interest in the name borne by each individual for purposes of
On March 30, 1968, a verified petition was filed by Pang Cha identification and the same should not be changed for trivial
Quen praying that her daughter be allowed to change her reasons like the instant case (Ty vs. Republic L-18669,
name from May Sia, alias Manman Huang, to Mary Pang De November 29, 1965). A change of name is a mere privilege
la Cruz. and not a matter of right (Ong Peng Oan vs. Republic, L-8035,
November 29, 1957; Yu vs. Republic, L- 22040, November 29,
The petition was based on the following: (1) desire of Mary 1965) and because the petition to change the name of the
Pang to use the last name of her stepfather,(2) to provide her minor May Sia is not supported by weighty reasons, the trial
stability, and (3) conformity of Alfredo Dela Cruz to the petition court erred in granting it.
by signing at the bottom of the pleading.
Pang Cha Quen further asserted that the petition was neither
made for the purpose of concealing a crime as her ten-year old
daughter has not committed any nor to evade the execution of
a judgment as she has never been sued in court. The petition
is not intended to cause damage or prejudice to any third
person.
The RTC granted the petition but the Government through
the Solicitor General appealed to theSupreme Court alleging
the petition is against the law based on the grounds that: (1)
her other aliasMary Pang was not stated in the title of the
petition when it was published, and (2) for failure to state the
proper/reasonable cause for changing the name.
ISSUE:1)Whether or not Pang Cha Quen presented
proper/reasonable cause to justify her petition to change
thesurname of her daughter.
2)Whether or not the publication of the petition is valid since it
omitted her other alias Mary Pang.
HELD:1)No, Pang Cha Quen did not
present proper/reasonable cause to justify her petition to
change the surname of her daughter.
2)No, the publication of the petition is not valid since it
omitted her other alias Mary Pang.
RATIONALE: The Supreme Court reversed the decision of
the RTC.
General rules on name change:
(1)Change of name should not be permitted if it will give a false
impression of family relationship to another where none
actually exists (Laperal vs. Republic, L-18008, October
30, 1962; Johnson vs.Republic, L-18284, April 30, 1963;
Moore vs. Republic, L-18407, June 26, 1963). In Padilla vs.
Republic,113 SCRA 789, we specifically held that our laws do
not authorize legitimate children to adopt the surname of a
person not their father, for to allow them to adopt the surname
of their mother's husband, who is not their father, can result in
confusion of their paternity.